Skip to content

Container Service: Add version 2025-03-01 #4826

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

hqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhq
Copy link
Contributor

Tested by generating the sdk locally & passed.

@jackofallops
Copy link
Member

Note to the reviewer:
This API contains a breaking behavioural change to LROs that needs to be investigated for the AzureRM Provider before it can be used. Specifically, free-form statuses for status and provisioningState can be used which will break the current "known-state" expectations of the poller.

@jackofallops jackofallops changed the title Continer Service: Add version 2025-03-01 Container Service: Add version 2025-03-01 Jun 23, 2025
@hqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhq
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @jackofallops can this be merged so other resources under container service can add support for new properties in this api version, e.g. the fleets resource is adding a new feature to auto upgrade & only availble in this API.

I have checked with the service team that this API version will only impact AKS resource -> would it be better to have this version merged & I will a comment in the provider repo telling people not to use this version for AKS only

@thpham
Copy link

thpham commented Jul 1, 2025

Hello,

I'm waiting as well for this to be merged so we can start re-introducing previous v3 features, like those documented here. At least as far I was able to understand the workflow... let me know if I could help for something ! thank you.

@jeffhuenemann
Copy link

@jackofallops Any thoughts on @hqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhq 's comment above? This is a main blocker of important features (such as AKS VNet integrated control plane) getting into v4.x of the azurerm terraform provider. While we're stuck on v3.x, we're starting to get pretty timeboxed - for example, support for Azure Managed Grafana v10 ends next month, but v11 isn't supported until azurerm v4.x.

@jackofallops
Copy link
Member

will be unblocked by hashicorp/go-azure-sdk#1221

Copy link
Member

@jackofallops jackofallops left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks @hqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhq
Can you take a look at removing the versions that are no longer in use by the Azure RM provider here, we should be mindful of the number of versions we include and not simply add indefinitely.

@@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ service "containerregistry" {
}
service "containerservice" {
name = "ContainerService"
available = ["2019-08-01", "2023-03-02-preview", "2023-10-15", "2024-04-01", "2024-05-01", "2024-09-01", "2025-02-01"]
available = ["2019-08-01", "2023-03-02-preview", "2023-10-15", "2024-04-01", "2024-05-01", "2024-09-01", "2025-02-01", "2025-03-01"]
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can we remove the versions no longer referenced by the provider?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I have removed some of the old & not used versions of ContainerService

@Chippiewill
Copy link

Is there a reason for not adding 2025-05-01 (latest stable) instead? That version is required for node auto-provisioning.

@weisdd
Copy link

weisdd commented Jul 21, 2025

I agree with @Chippiewill, let's add 2025-05-01 as well, it'll unblock hashicorp/terraform-provider-azurerm#30190

@jackofallops
Copy link
Member

@hqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhqhq - Given the feedback, is it worth skipping 2025-03-01 and jumping straight to 2025-05-01?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants